Criticize a whistleblower, go to Ethics jail? Adam Schiff didn’t get quite that explicit in his memo today outlining the rules of the impeachment inquiry hearings, but that certainly seems to be the subtext. Schiff instructed House Intelligence panel members that they’d better not “facilitate any efforts by President Trump or his allies to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously and lawfully raised concerns about the
President’s conduct.”Those who do will find themselves referred to the House Ethics Committee:
Whistleblower started Trump-Ukraine matter, framed issue in way House Dems have adopted for impeachment. Now Chairman Schiff orders GOP: Do not talk about whistleblower in impeachment hearings. If you do, you'll hear from Ethics Committee. https://t.co/SPVajnNhlp pic.twitter.com/ZKcITQDjIb
— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 12, 2019
There’s more objectionable proscriptions in that first paragraph, but let’s start there. In the first place, there is no law prohibiting the disclosure of the identity of a whistleblower who becomes part of an investigation, especially as the investigation proceeds to judicial activity. Recall that House Democrats have repeatedly represented their impeachment inquiries as quasi-judicial proceedings in order to get courts to enforce their subpoenas for Trump’s tax records and other documentation. It may not be a good practice to do so, but it’s not against the law, and it certainly doesn’t amount to an abuse of power when members of Congress use that to question the legitimacy of its own proceedings.
Furthermore, Shiff’s warning is unconscionably vague on what constitutes “threaten, intimidate, or retaliate.” Does criticism count as “intimidation”? Are these “Daily Northwestern” rules? Schiff and his allies have tried making that argument publicly, claiming that any question about the timing of contacts between the whistleblower and Schiff’s staff are illegitimate attempts to silence someone Schiff doesn’t plan to call anyway. It might not be an explicit demand not to discuss the whistleblower or his complaint, but it’s tough to read this as anything else.
This is equally curious for a committee that’s supposedly looking at getting to the truth: